Ethical views??? looking for a little insight

[scubalil]

Hi Chris,

Your paper is probably already submitted and graded but as a professional archaeologist, I can still share my position on removing artefacts. The issue of conservation has been mentioned (as most artefacts recovered from a marine environment require specialized conservation if they're not going to disentigrate) and is definitely important. If you drive to Key West, you'll see more than 100 cannon and anchor on 'exhibit' outside houses and businesses. In almost all cases they haven't been conserved or conserved inadequately. The reality is, they are of little use to archaeologists and they have lost 99% of their significance by being removed from the sea. An impression locked in a piece of coral on the sea floor or a fastening is more valuable to an archaeologist than a hoard of treasure on land.

Many wrecks are in high energy environments. That is to say they have been affected by hurricanes, tides, surge and other forces. In many cases they have been flattened to a scatter of concreted bits and pieces. It is easy for non-archaeologists to see these sites as garbage dumps where little exists except a few interesting souvenirs and as a result many have been picked clean...

The director of the History of Scuba Diving Musuem in Islamorada shared a story with me. Several years ago, a friend gave him part of a sword that he found diving off the keys. He told him where the site was roughly and that there were 'lots of bits' all mixed together. Years later, the director learned that archaeologists were studying this site and that at least four ships had been lost on that part of the reef, ranging from less than a century to several hundred years old. Despite every effort to identify the ships, it was virtually impossible for archaeologists to learn more because divers have removed the small pieces (diagnostic artifacts) that would allow them to understand more about the site, the ships' identities and the time periods they were lost. The sword given to the director was just one piece among many that had been taken.

As archaeologists, we work to build a picture of the past. We are puzzle builders, using historical research and importantly, artifacts to understand the past. Removing artifacts makes it difficult or even impossible for us to analyze a site in great detail. For example, we might be able to say at least 'four ships were lost on this reef'. On the other hand if there had been more puzzle pieces we might have been able to say, "four ships, one from the 1733 Spanish Fleet, another from the War of 1812, a third from the Confederacy and a fourth an iron-hulled tug from the 20th century."

 

[ijdod]

My personal view on the matter is that I don't see any problems diving wrecks, even with loss of life. I do give thought to the circumstances of whatever happened, and loss of life, but that's just me. I do have issues with taking artifacts unless it's for archeological reasons (or full scale salvage under maritime regulations). It's always been a pet peeve that we're teaching to look but not touch, yet at the same time taking artifacts from a wreck seems fairly common. Perhaps other divers would like to see the wreck with portholes still in place...

 

[nimoh]

I both preach and practice the "look but don't touch" philosophy.

There was an analogy given earlier in the thread about a car accident on a freeway, where the insurance company sells what's left of the car. The significant difference to me is that the insurance company bought the car from the original owner (via claim settlement) and owns the car.

For shipwrecks, I think the owner is free to salvage the wreck if they choose, or sell the rights to salvage it and if the owner can't be determined, then I think the wreck should be left alone.

However, I don't see a problem with diving the wreck, being careful not to disturb it.

 

[TopherMcKenzie]

I wanted to thank everyone for all the comments!! I enjoy reading what everyone has to say so feel free to keep posting! I turned in the paper a while ago and did well on in. I want to rewrite it to include more of the thoughts and feelings that have been shared here so it is a work in progress. I hope to learn more form the talented and knowledgeable divers on here.

 

[DA Aquamaster]

I agree with this logic with most sports, but not completely with salt water wreck diving. Most shipwrecks within a reasonable boat ride from the shore are also usually in maritime shipping lanes. The wrecks are dragged or blown up to keep the profile low as to not be a hazard. Then there are hurricanes and other natural forces. Most of these wrecks last about 50 years or so before they are unrecognizable pile of debris. If someone was to take, for example, a porthole, off of one of these wrecks. They clean it up, restore it, and display it proudly at their house, or donate it to a maritime museum. I don't see a problem with this, within reason, of course.

Obviously, war grave or not many wrecks were blown up or wire dragged to reduce their vertical relief to reduce their potential as a hazard to navigation. That represents what I see as a sound ethical decision - doing harm to a wreck/gravesite to avoid greater harm and other wrecks.

At the other extreme is the view that because a government has not declared it a war grave, it is ok to dive, penetrate and plunder. The problem is that many seamen in merchant ships went down with their ships as well when they were torpedoed. Many sips were thus clearly lost to enemy action with dead crewman on board, but the only distinction separating them from a destroyer or submarine is that they are not a naval combat vessel. Ships lost with crew aboard due to storms etc, are only one step removed, and they are still potential grave sites, so where do you draw the line?

I disagree with artifact removal when it comes at the destruction of the wreck. Removing a port hole is a good example. When found on the wreck, it is usually heavily encrusted and as such the structure is to a degree supported and protected from the elements. However when a diver goes at it with hammers and bars and pneumatic tools to liberate the porthole 50 or years of growth is removed, the structure is damaged and further exposed to accelerated effects of corrosion. No single diver is responsible for destroying the wreck but when you add the cumulative damage from many divers, the wreck decays much faster than would have been the case had it been left alone.

Then of course there is the end justifying the means - the old argument "if I had not rescued it it would have been lost to the sea". That's also largely a bogus argument as it left alone in a hundred (or more) years it may well have ended up on the sea floor long after all the steel rusted away - but it's still there, and now made even more valuable by the passage of time. And at that point I have no real issue with recovering it from the sand before it's recovered as long as the wreck is not archaeologically significant and that it will actually be displayed publicly rather than sitting in someone's garage or getting sold on e-bay to live in someone else's closet.

The problem is that divers *know* that but many of them so inclined to collect artifacts worry that someone else will "save" it first, so they speed up the process. Even once it is "saved" the port hole may or may not be properly conserved, may languish in some ones garage and if not trashed or recycled down the road, it probably ends up sold and over time loses its provenance and association with the wreck. If it's lucky, sooner or later it ends up on the wall with a mirror stuck in it - a cheesy decoration largely devoid of the meaning and human cost of the wreck it came from.

But that's small potatoes. The far larger destroyer of wrecks is the way in which most operators hook into them. Consider the U-352. It's arguably a lot older now than it was but it gets dove on an almost daily basis often by several boats and each and every one hooks it with a grappling hook. The exterior of the sub - the casing, saddle tanks, etc, have over the years been beaten away by countless hooks and what's left is a sewer pipe. You can compare the U-352 to other subs on the bottom at similar depths for nearly identical periods of time and see the difference in those that are visited far less often.

Ethics aside, this makes zero sense to me as NC wreck diving is arguably the best in the world, but the WWII era German artificial reefing program was pretty much a one time deal and those wrecks are not going to be replaced anytime soon. I have to regard the average NC boat captain and certainly the group as a whole as incredibly short sighted business people as they are destroying the very wrecks that bring them their business. No one wants to consider mooring balls (submerged or otherwise), due to cost, arguments over who'd maintain them etc, and no one wants to tackle those issues in part because no one sees past the near term or recognizes what will become of the wrecks otherwise. And for the most part it's way to late now already for wrecks other than the more recent artificial reefs (that are also not buoyed).

The U-352 is also significant as it is a designated war grave, yet it is dove every day with people constantly picking pieces off of it. Even over the last 5 years, I've noted the significant degradation in the stern due to both boats hooking it and divers digging through it. And divers have and still do penetrate it, despite the war grave status. Obviously commercial interests prevail.

----

That said, I have no issue with divers visiting a war grave and even penetrating it, provided it's done with respect. I've walked numerous battle fields and having done so one better understands both the tactics of the battle as well as the human courage and cost - on both sides. Wrecks are no different and I'd like to think those who died there appreciate the remembrance of the sacrifices made that the visit represents. However, a large part of this is the fact that remains, including bones, have for the most part long since disappeared from many WWII era wrecks so disturbing them is less of an issue.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think TSandM's comparison to Gettysburg is apt. We visit war sites where there was tremendous loss of life on land all the time, and no one thinks twice about it. No one sees it as a violation of any kind. When the graveyard was established there, President Lincoln said "We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this." It was indeed fitting and proper, and when we visit sites like that, we do so in hushed reverence for "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled [there, who] consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

I felt that same hushed reverence when I dived the wrecks in Chuuk (Truck Lagoon). I was diving where many men died, men who were at the time the enemies of my country. I still felt that hushed reverence for people who died for a cause in which they believed, even though it was a cause in which I did not believe. I read the accounts of the battle carefully. I grew as a person from having visited those sites.

You do not feel anything like that when you dive the wrecks intentionally sunk as a part of artificial reef programs. That's just diving.

As far as removing objects goes, I am generally against it. I can see the point of an archaeologist removing objects for study. I can understand pulling up a horde of lost gold in an ancient wreck site composed of scattered remnants emerging from the sand as the result of recent storms. On the other hand, if it is a well-known site that divers regularly visit, then I am grateful that the divers before me left what there is for me to see, and I will leave them for future dives as well.

 

[eponym]

I felt that same hushed reverence when I dived the wrecks in Chuuk (Truck Lagoon). I was diving where many men died, men who were at the time the enemies of my country. I still felt that hushed reverence for people who died for a cause in which they believed, even though it was a cause in which I did not believe. I read the accounts of the battle carefully. I grew as a person from having visited those sites.
You do not feel anything like that when you dive the wrecks intentionally sunk as a part of artificial reef programs. That's just diving.

My experiences on artificial reefs are different. I'm a baby boomer whose memories include the Berlin airlift, the Cuban missle crisis, and the Prague Spring.

For me, a dive on an intentionally placed decomissioned war vessel includes awareness of, and respect for, the men who served on her, the missions they performed, and the measures they were prepared to undertake. Especially if the mission was to preserve the peace (maintain the balance) in the cold war years of mutually assured destruction.

Bryan

 

[boulderjohn]

My experiences on artificial reefs are different. I'm a baby boomer whose memories include the Berlin airlift, the Cuban missle crisis, and the Prague Spring.

For me, a dive on an intentionally placed decomissioned war vessel includes awareness of, and respect for, the men who served on her, the missions they performed, and the measures they were prepared to undertake. Especially if the mission was to preserve the peace (maintain the balance) in the cold war years of mutually assured destruction.

Bryan

I suppose that if I ever got to dive one of those wrecks, I might feel the same. I have tried the Oriskany four times and been blown out each time. The old tug boats, barges (etc.) that I usually end up on are not quite in that league.

 

[chairmanTARAC]

In the 70's many liberty ships were sunk as artificial reefs, In texas many divers dived this vessel's and came back and said they dove the liberty ships. When I became chairman, we funded a study by Archeologist Barto Arnold to obtain each vessel's history, When TPWD published his history, it gave meaning to the dive sites, and I was fortunate to hear from men who served on these vessel during WWII and were very grateful That their service was remembered and preserved for future generations. The book is available for download on the Texas Parks and Wildlife web site. Also when the Clipper was sunk, Dr Stephan Curly has a book entitled The Ship That Wouldn't die, that tells the story of this vessel from Iwo Jima, to New York Passenger ship, To Texas A&M maritime training vessel to clean up and sinking.

 

[DevonDiver]

If scuba divers are guilty of plundering artifacts from wrecks, then it's probably due to a failure of education.

If removed artifacts are not being properly preserved, cataloged and recorded, then it's probably due to a failure of education.

What is the underwater archaeological community doing to counter that lack of education amongst the wider scuba community?